762 réponses à ce sujet

[BellatrixLugosi]

But assassin when it comes to thane, samara, zaeed, and Jack they mostly have other things to do afterwords. But then again is there anyone who really expected people like Ashley, liara, kaiden, and wrex to be like they were in Me2?

[Zulu_DFA]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
Zulu can you like, just take a chill pill?

Nope.

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
Your reply to assasin is just garbage,

 
Down to his level.

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
don't talk about logic when your not being logical yourself.

I am logical. If not, show me where. Hell, you even said yourself that I'm right on this one (this is not a logical argument, but still...).

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
And also dont talk about someone not backing up their claims

 
I don't. Assasin does.

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
when your ME2 vs. ME1 are based on purely emotional arguement.

This is not a ME1>M2 thread.

[Jaron Oberyn]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

But assassin when it comes to thane, samara, zaeed, and Jack they mostly have other things to do afterwords. But then again is there anyone who really expected people like Ashley, liara, kaiden, and wrex to be like they were in Me2?

Thane is pretty much dead. Samara could leave to continue her work, or she could help stop a greater threat. Because the reapers should take priority with her over some low life criminals. But who knows. Zaeed and Kasumi won't be there. Unless Bioware makes them full squadmates, which I kind of doubt. Jack will leave only if she's not your LI. If she is, she has no reason to leave. 

Like I said, there was a reason for why Ash/Kaidan and Wrex were sidelined. Bioware didn't want to worry about them potentially dying a second time during the suicide mission. All 3 of them could die in the 1st game. If they were in your squad, they could die in the second game. That's the only reason those 3 were sidelined. Liara, because of the Shadow Broker plot, and that they don't want her to potentially die on the suicide mission.

However, all of your squadmates in 2 can potentially die. But, that doesn't mean they won't be in the third game. Ash/Kaidan/Wrex could potentially die, but were in the second. And I explained the reason above that they weren't given squad status. So since the Mass 2 squad survived the suicide mission, they'll take the same approach they did with enabling the characters in the third game, but not reducing them to cameos because theres no "suicide" mission to keep them safe from. Therefore they will be squadmates, with the exception of the people listed above.

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
don't talk about logic when your not being logical yourself.

I am logical. If not, show me where. Hell, you even said yourself that I'm right on this one (this is not a logical argument, but still...).

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
And also dont talk about someone not backing up their claims

 
I don't. Assasin does.

1. None of your arguments are logical. Sorry, but it's true. You have provide no solid reasonings for why your argument is true. I do, and I also provide sources to back up my argument.

2.Your right, you don't back up your argument, and I do. It's why my argument is the most credible out of the two. Because people aren't going to listen to pure speculation, but speculation based on facts and sources. 

-Polite

[Thundertactics]

You do realise that voice actors get payed per project, not per hour or something, right?
And that it would probably cost a whole lot more money and time to create entirely new characters with their own development within the story? (Which was the whole point of ME2, obtain new characters, develop their stories, get to know them, etc. To do this all over again in ME3 is just silly.)
Not to mention, they'd require some seriously odd amalgamations of storywriting to write out truly loyal characters like Garrus and Tali (especially when she's exiled), it wouldn't make any sense.

I'm fairly sure this has been mentioned before (heck, the very first reply does), but I was just shocked to see that this thread has been going on for so long.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Thundertactics wrote...

You do realise that voice actors get payed per project, not per hour or something, right?
And that it would probably cost a whole lot more money and time to create entirely new characters with their own development within the story? (Which was the whole point of ME2, obtain new characters, develop their stories, get to know them, etc. To do this all over again in ME3 is just silly.)
Not to mention, they'd require some seriously odd amalgamations of storywriting to write out truly loyal characters like Garrus and Tali (especially when she's exiled), it wouldn't make any sense.

I'm fairly sure this has been mentioned before (heck, the very first reply does), but I was just shocked to see that this thread has been going on for so long.

Exactly. << Just for you Zulu.

-Polite

[Elite Midget]

Bioware denied us Wrex, Ashley/Kaiden, and Liara in ME2. I wont be surprised if they deny us ME2 characters in ME3 as well. Or better yet, they deny even Liara and/or Ashley/Kaiden in ME3 along with the ME2 cast!

[Zulu_DFA]

@ PoliteAssasin



Funny how you continue with your rubbish even when Stanley Woo has officially disbanded the Taliban.

[BellatrixLugosi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
Zulu can you like, just take a chill pill?

Nope.

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
Your reply to assasin is just garbage,

 
Down to his level.

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
don't talk about logic when your not being logical yourself.

I am logical. If not, show me where. Hell, you even said yourself that I'm right on this one (this is not a logical argument, but still...).

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
And also dont talk about someone not backing up their claims

 
I don't. Assasin does.

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
when your ME2 vs. ME1 are based on purely emotional arguement.

This is not a ME1>M2 thread.

I said you were most likely to be right reguarding squads in Me3, but you are no logical person, Logic itself is suppost to be a decision that is based with no emotional regard, but every post you make you make jabs at people and start to make comment's that show you hold yourself superior to others.  Zulu, I don't like you, your a bad debator, a bad analyist, and your anti me2 arguement's are so shallow, because you intend for it to be some sort of grand debate that would lead your theories to be crammed down Bioware's throat.  Bioware allready doesn't care you know


Edit:you probably allready replied with some trash before I edited but im doing it anyway.  If you want to be logical Zulu don't show superiority, or petty emotional insecurities in your posts.

Done

Modifié par BellatrixLugosi, 10 août 2010 - 06:04 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

@ PoliteAssasin

Funny how you continue with your rubbish even when Stanley Woo has officially disbanded the Taliban.

What rubbish would I be continuing with? 

-Polite

[Zulu_DFA]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

I said you were most likely to be right reguarding squads in Me3, but you are no logical person, Logic itself is suppost to be a decision that is based with no emotional regard, but every post you make you make jabs at people and start to make comment's that show you hold yourself superior to others.  Zulu, I don't like you, your a bad debator, a bad analyist, and your anti me2 arguement's are so shallow, because you intend for it to be some sort of grand debate that would lead your theories to be crammed down Bioware's throat.  Bioware allready doesn't care you know

Edit:you probably allready replied with some trash before I edited but im doing it anyway.  If you want to be logical Zulu don't show superiority, or petty emotional insecurities in your posts.

Done

Again, please show me where I am not being logical. I am not always logical. Sometimes I'm deliberately illogical. That is when I'm being sarcastic. So point out my sentences that bug you, and I'll be happy to help to calibrate your sarcasm meter.

Anyway, I can't see how putting some emotional glaze on my logical cookies makes them less logical.

As for your not liking me, I get the feeling that it has more to do with my being openly in love with Zaeed, TIM & Udina, than my not liking the ME2's mass dumbification.

[Jaron Oberyn]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

  If you want to be logical Zulu don't show superiority, or petty emotional insecurities in your posts.

Done

Well said. 

-Polite

[KainrycKarr]

for christ's sake both of you just STOP. The entire thing has just gotten entirely moronic, and you're both making yourselves look bad.

[Jaron Oberyn]

KainrycKarr wrote...

for christ's sake both of you just STOP. The entire thing has just gotten entirely moronic, and you're both making yourselves look bad.

Well said.






Jk This is getting old though. But I'll contribute to it no further. It takes two to fight, so I'll back off. Have to remember who I'm dealing with here.

-Polite

[KainrycKarr]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

for christ's sake both of you just STOP. The entire thing has just gotten entirely moronic, and you're both making yourselves look bad.

Well said.






Jk This is getting old though. But I'll contribute to it no further. It takes two to fight, so I'll back off. Have to remember who I'm dealing with here.

-Polite

your forum dignity(lol) will thank you later.

[retroguy35]

Shepard can also die in ME2. That seems pretty non-canon though.

[KainrycKarr]

retroguy35 wrote...

Shepard can also die in ME2. That seems pretty non-canon though.

Yea, but you can't import a dead Shepard. You can import a Shepard that only has two people still alive.

[Arijharn]

As far as I see it, whether a character returns from Me2 to ME3 lies entirely on 'where they left off.' Also, if EA/BioWare made a lot of money on ME2 (hint; they did) then it would make sense for them to re-hire their voice actors (probably even put a clause in their original contracts saying that they may be tapped to voice lines for ME3).



If ME3 starts basically (or a couple of months) after ME2, then every character who survived the suicide mission should still be alive (I find it possible, albeit exceptionally unlikely) that Mordin could suddenly develop a severe version of Salarian cold and die within those months, but it's possible!



We may see original characters (I hope so!) but to kill off all characters from ME2 based on the fact that they may die is, in my opinion, stupid. My reasoning?

a) Emotional attachment. Presumably the character may of gained a degree of empathy from the player -- this lies outside the fact that (s)he may be a LI

There is no inherent reward for those importing from ME2 (it's not implausible to assume that the majority of people who will play ME3 has at least played ME2).

c) Contracts are probably signed already that exercises the option to re hire them (and for that matter, why would an actor pass up on ready work, unless they have already committed on to something else?)

d) Voice recording is accomplished relatively easy. I find it unlikely, for example, that BioWare flew Martin Sheen to Edmonton to make his recordings. I speak in ignorance, but voice recording would surely be easier to reschedule for individual cast members if they have other commitments (such as: Oh no, Yvonne Strahovski can't meet the day on x because she has to re-shoot a scene from Chuck)

e) ME3 would be one of EA's premier titles for the year. IIRC ME2 was one of the only titles that made EA any real money so far in recent years. Thus it stands to reason in my opinion that at least equal funding has been earmarked for the production costs of ME3 as was for ME2.

f) The characters, while useful, wont be involved in absolute mission critical storyline's other than perhaps their own (aka; 'Loyalty'). For example, while Legion may be useful in gaining an alliance with the Geth, he wont be a key in its formation.



You can literally manufacture any reason at all for having your squad members remain with you.

[Zulu_DFA]

Arijharn wrote...

As far as I see it, whether a character returns from Me2 to ME3 lies entirely on 'where they left off.' Also, if EA/BioWare made a lot of money on ME2 (hint; they did) then it would make sense for them to re-hire their voice actors (probably even put a clause in their original contracts saying that they may be tapped to voice lines for ME3).

I don't think that voice actors' paychecks, though significant article in the budget, are critical. What is critical is game integrity. And it involves balance. All sorts of it, but most importantly the balance of the game being friendly to newbies and rewarding to oldies / giving incentive to buy previous titles. This is being actively discussed in the stickied thread.

It also involves coding all the stuff together. "Bringnig back ME2 squad" [as squadmates] would make it a hell more difficult to program everything to work correctly, than cameoing them. And as the recent findings of unused ME2 audio by didymos1120 show, lots of stuff simply did not make it on screen for no apparent reason. And the Conrad Verner's glitch as well as the quest log glitches suggest that it's not due to the stuff simply being "cut", but because of some problems that could not be eliminated due to time constraints.

[Arijharn]

While you are right to bring up the issues of balance and coding ease, these aren't necessarily negatives in terms of development hell (although granted, it will be difficult).



If you boil it all down, a character is in a binary state. These binary states allow you to make logical 'guestimates' as to the role in the storyline (there, but not quite as 'essential' as they were during the course of ME2).



If you're importing a valid Commander Shephard, then you can be assured that you'll have at least 2 characters alive. Failing that, would it not be logical to assume that they'll also 'guestimate' which of two squad mates is the most likely to return for those who didn't import (I hear Miranda, for example, is ridiculously difficult to kill off, they may just randomly assign the other character, depending on storyline needs). This is assuming that the 'default' for ME3 setting would be that you kill all of your team, but for the two that allow you to live on.



Time constraints do of course exist, but I hardly see a rewarding outcome for those people who could be 'bothered' to fulfil the characters loyalty quests and buy the upgrades to have the sense of 'achievement' robbed afterwards. In a way, it should punish (however slight) those who did want to kill your team members, not the other way around.



While the team is obviously under milestone requirements, it seems to make more sense to me at least for them to work under the assumption that the entire team returns, and then filter that through their systems as opposed to the other way around.

[KainrycKarr]

Arijharn wrote...

While you are right to bring up the issues of balance and coding ease, these aren't necessarily negatives in terms of development hell (although granted, it will be difficult).

If you boil it all down, a character is in a binary state. These binary states allow you to make logical 'guestimates' as to the role in the storyline (there, but not quite as 'essential' as they were during the course of ME2).

If you're importing a valid Commander Shephard, then you can be assured that you'll have at least 2 characters alive. Failing that, would it not be logical to assume that they'll also 'guestimate' which of two squad mates is the most likely to return for those who didn't import (I hear Miranda, for example, is ridiculously difficult to kill off, they may just randomly assign the other character, depending on storyline needs). This is assuming that the 'default' for ME3 setting would be that you kill all of your team, but for the two that allow you to live on.

Time constraints do of course exist, but I hardly see a rewarding outcome for those people who could be 'bothered' to fulfil the characters loyalty quests and buy the upgrades to have the sense of 'achievement' robbed afterwards. In a way, it should punish (however slight) those who did want to kill your team members, not the other way around.

While the team is obviously under milestone requirements, it seems to make more sense to me at least for them to work under the assumption that the entire team returns, and then filter that through their systems as opposed to the other way around.

This would make sense, were it not for the fact that EA/Bioware took the idea to cater to new players, not returning ones, and seem to have the conclusion that any reference to the previous game will confuse and dumbfound new players.

Stupid, but that seemed to be how they handled ME2.

[Arijharn]

To be fair, I think ME2 is a different kind of beast than ME1 was. Obviously, ME3 will attract brand new players (and most likely more than a few), but if they're positioning ME3 as the final chapter, than I'd say it'd be logical to treat it as the last in the chapter (I.e., support the contents of the preceeding more-so than what they did with ME2).



I think the problem is that you're assuming all brand new players to be stupid. I don't see the direct correlation between this and the next game in the series. Wouldn't it be easier to reference events in the first two games (I mean, the game is called ME3 after all) and leave it as an exercise to the player themselves to go out and buy the others?



With ME3, they don't necessarily need to treat the game as a brand new franchise (to me, while enjoyable, it seemed as if ME2 was more a reboot than a sequel really -- this largely attributable to the new gameplay focus).



Obviously though, you can't just completely shaft the new players...

[KainrycKarr]

Arijharn wrote...

To be fair, I think ME2 is a different kind of beast than ME1 was. Obviously, ME3 will attract brand new players (and most likely more than a few), but if they're positioning ME3 as the final chapter, than I'd say it'd be logical to treat it as the last in the chapter (I.e., support the contents of the preceeding more-so than what they did with ME2).

I think the problem is that you're assuming all brand new players to be stupid. I don't see the direct correlation between this and the next game in the series. Wouldn't it be easier to reference events in the first two games (I mean, the game is called ME3 after all) and leave it as an exercise to the player themselves to go out and buy the others?

With ME3, they don't necessarily need to treat the game as a brand new franchise (to me, while enjoyable, it seemed as if ME2 was more a reboot than a sequel really -- this largely attributable to the new gameplay focus).

Obviously though, you can't just completely shaft the new players...

No no no. I'm not. EA/Bioware are. Re-read what I wrote. Personally i think a new player coming into ME2 and hearing/experience references to 1 will simply encourage them to go buy/play 1. Bioware/EA appear to believe it's better to pretend that the new player hasn't missed anything.

[smudboy]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
While the team is obviously under milestone requirements, it seems to make more sense to me at least for them to work under the assumption that the entire team returns, and then filter that through their systems as opposed to the other way around.

This would make sense, were it not for the fact that EA/Bioware took the idea to cater to new players, not returning ones, and seem to have the conclusion that any reference to the previous game will confuse and dumbfound new players.

Stupid, but that seemed to be how they handled ME2.

This is backwards.  A system works based on the necessary number of factors for it to work, as additional features and content are added to it.  A bottom-up approach.  One does, however, design such a system to become robust, so those features and content are added later, easily.  This is one of the fundamental concepts as to why "NO ME2 SQUAD" will be recruitable by default (the KISS rule, I think.) Optional content is excess baggage.  ME2 = excess baggage in spades.

Although the iteration for every squadmate returning will eventually be factored in, they simply will not be as squadmates, unless that's all they are, and not the diverse characters with independent missions and massive dialog wheels, solely for their benefit or character development that we know them for.

[Arijharn]

smudboy wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
While the team is obviously under milestone requirements, it seems to make more sense to me at least for them to work under the assumption that the entire team returns, and then filter that through their systems as opposed to the other way around.

This would make sense, were it not for the fact that EA/Bioware took the idea to cater to new players, not returning ones, and seem to have the conclusion that any reference to the previous game will confuse and dumbfound new players.

Stupid, but that seemed to be how they handled ME2.

This is backwards.  A system works based on the necessary number of factors for it to work, as additional features and content are added to it.  A bottom-up approach.  One does, however, design such a system to become robust, so those features and content are added later, easily.  This is one of the fundamental concepts as to why "NO ME2 SQUAD" will be recruitable by default (the KISS rule, I think.) Optional content is excess baggage.  ME2 = excess baggage in spades.

Although the iteration for every squadmate returning will eventually be factored in, they simply will not be as squadmates, unless that's all they are, and not the diverse characters with independent missions and massive dialog wheels, solely for their benefit or character development that we know them for.

This may be true if they designed the game as they were making it. Sure things change during development, but this isn't the same thing. It's not as if, for example, while they were building the game (i.e., after they were planning it) when one day someone comes in and says: "They should totally go to Illium!" When it originally wasn't designed.

Or if it wasn't designed and someone came in and said: "You know, this doesn't really flow here, lets try it on Illium instead" then the processes themselves (I.e., what was changed to put it on Illium after all) was still in the game anyway. 

Overarching design is likely to be solidified before making the game (or at least, before they really go into production). That's not to say things don't change though, but suddenly dumbing down characters to non recruitable (by default) isn't necessarily one of those things.

Lets take Miranda for example. She's tough to kill. Yvonne would be hired to voice her lines (to the same reasonable care as she did during ME2's production, you know, comments at certain places etc). This would also be done for the other characters. They just wouldn't be essential to the progress of the game itself. If they do this, then the only real people who are missing out are either a) Morons -- I mean people who kill her off (jks jks!) Those who didn't play to completion ME2. It's not as if every character after all would make a comment for every single situation, because that would just be inefficient in resources. Also bear in mind that while the production costs for ME3 would be high, it couldn't be as high as the production costs for ME2 because they are still using the same engine (i.e., experience hard won) so thus they could iterate much faster than earlier.

If lines are said by other characters instead of the characters we already know about, then who cares? This happens already anyway (or rather, variations thereof)